How can you possibly be an athiest?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Originally posted by Azazel
actually, AFAIK it's not like that.

Soft Atheist: god doesn't exist.
Hard Atheist: god CANNOT exist.

That makes no sense, as there is no practical difference between the two beliefs.

Soft Atheist: Opinion
Hard Atheist: Belief

Is everyone happy yet?

[Bosh]

There is no known law of physics that allows for the creation of information such as is contained in DNA.

The God in the gaps argument doesn't hold that much water, especially since gaps keep on disappearing. For example it didn't make much sense to believe that volcanos were the result of God-vomit in the Classical Age despite no known natural process being known at the time. Basically "I don't know what causes X therefore God must have done it" doesn't have a very good track record.
Also there really isn't that much of a DNA gap, there's self-catalyzing cycles that are sort of proto-DNA and its believed that the most primitive organisms had only RNA in any case.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by St Leo
Soft Atheist: Opinion
Hard Atheist: Belief

Is everyone happy yet?

Um, "Opinion" and "Belief" are synonymous...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I am aware the method has evolved since its creation, but its basic philosophy remains the same. Believing in science is believeing this fundamental philosophy. Believing in religion is also believing in a fundamental philosophy. I don't need either one.

Fundamentally, you either hold that your sensory inputs closely approximate that of reality, or you don't. If you don't, there's nothing more to discuss, since nothing is reliable to you, as you can be just be a brain in a vat. Philosophically, I posit that having such an idea ("brain in a vat") excludes it from actuality, but we are already gettting too far away.

Now, if you hold that your senses are good (I call it "primacy of senses," not sure of the actual term), you will hold that observations is the only approach to acquire data of nature. That really is all there is to Empiricism.

[orange]

Speer - Do you believe that giant purple banana eating monkeys control each and every one of our movements from atop a cliff in Nepal?

No? Prove it

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No, I am argueing precisely about the methodology. It is possible, some would say inevitable, that scientific methodology will not be able to explain everything in the universe, ever. This is a matter of principle - not just an inibility of scientists to do their job. To say that it will be able to, as you just did , is a statement of faith.

On the contrary, Rogan, your position requires a contradiction in your fundamental outlook. If you posit that it is possible that something in this universe can't be known by applications of our senses, you are just saying that this something is completely unknowable, thus diving into a mud bog of metaphysics where empty assertions bounce off each other.

My question is this. If this something is completely unknowable, how do you know it is even there? On what basis do you argue for it?

[Boris Godunov]

Abiogenisis posits the following possible sequence:

simple chemicals -> basic building blocks -> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world -> RNA world -> DNA/protein world

DNA did not need to develop spontaneously--it was a slow evolutionary progression.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No you can't. The very definition of atheism is no belief in gods. A=none, theism=belief in deities.

Precisely.

Hence, Atheism is no belief in deities, not belief in no deities.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
GRAH!

Would you please, please, please, please repeat this after me a couple hundred times:

Agnosticism does not mean that you aren't sure about the existence of (a) god. Agnosticism does not mean that you aren't sure about the existence of (a) god. Agnosticism does not mean...

Agnosticism means that you believe there is no proof about the existence of (a) god. More accurately, weak agnosticism means that you believe there is no proof about the existence of (a) god, while hard agnosticism means that you believe there can't ever be any proof about the existence of (a) god.

Nope.

Agnosticism is a term attributed to Huxley, who made it in a semi-joking way in response to people asking his beliefs.

If you recall, Gnostics are a ancient sect who supposedly held knowledge of spiritual truths, i.e., gods. Therefore, Agnosticism is the lack of such knowledge. It does not reflect a person's standing on the question per se.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
However, my experience allows me to assign a probablity distribution to various concepts.

You're odd. You belief that probablity holds sway in the objective reality but you can't tell if you are in touch of it. Something is missing there somewhere.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boshko
Exactly Boris. Good to see someone who knows the difference between strong and weak (or as you term it hard and soft) belief. Strong/hard atheism doesn't make any sense since we have no way of knowing that our senses aren't so completely fallable what we're not missing moutains of evidence to theism (so God is very improbable but possible).

You have to accept that your senses are infallable, otherwise you might as well throw in your towel and be content to be a brain in a vat.

I am not saying that the senses of each individual person are flawless every time. I am saying that, collectively, our senses make an accurate picture of the objective reality over time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Therefore atheism is rather normal for anyone who has not studied DNA and the information it contains. But after such a study the belief that life arose without intelligent input requires blind faith in miracles. There is no known law of physics that allows for the creation of information such as is contained in DNA. Therefore an atheist certainly is not basing his belief (or lack of it) on the laws of physics.

Lincoln, would you gracefully quit this regurgitation of the same tripe over and over again? Last time when there was a serious discussion on this, you failed to substantiate your position. As I told you before, I still have the thread archived.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Abiogenisis posits the following possible sequence:

simple chemicals -> basic building blocks -> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world -> RNA world -> DNA/protein world

DNA did not need to develop spontaneously--it was a slow evolutionary progression.

Boshko is right. Creationists (including the so called Intelligent Design types) have adopted the "God in the Gap" position.

All the Creationist literature consist of the following:

- lies
- misquotes
- ridiculous misconstrutions
- pointing to something that hasn't been explained by science, yelling, "Look, God!"

[Kontiki]

My biggest problem with the "God in the gaps" arguments is not that they are necessarily wrong (can't prove that at this point), but rather if there is some sort of intelligent design process, why does it have to be proof of the Christian God? Why can't it be Vishnu, or a multitude of gods, or some other god/entity/higher power that no one has yet conceived?

[Boris Godunov]

The other problem with "intelligent design" is that our design and that of other species isn't always so intelligent. Thanks for the appendix, Lord. Oh, and the tailbone remnant, that's really useful. And having the testicles dangle outside the body in a vulnerable position was a real great idea, yessirree!